MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389076451 · doi:10.1109/mnet.2023.3335255

Optimizing Mobile-Edge AI-Generated Everything (AIGX) Services by Prompt Engineering: Fundamental, Framework, and Case Study

2023· article· en· W4389076451 on OpenAlexaff
Yinqiu Liu, Hongyang Du, Dusit Niyato, Jiawen Kang, Xuemin Shen, Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Network · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Data and IoT Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGenerative grammarMobile edge computingEdge deviceCoding (social sciences)Mobile deviceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceMultimediaDistributed computingWorld Wide WebCloud computingSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the next-generation paradigm for content creation, AI-Generated Content (AIGC), i.e., generating content automatically by Generative AI (GAI) based on user prompts, has gained great attention and success recently. With the ever-increasing power of GAI, especially the emergence of Pretrained Foundation Models (PFMs) that contain billions of parameters and prompt engineering methods (i.e., finding the best prompts for the given task), the application range of AIGC is rapidly expanding, covering various forms of information for human, systems, and networks, such as network designs, channel coding, and optimization solutions. In this article, we present the concept of mobile-edge AI-Generated Everything (AIGX). Specifically, we first review the building blocks of AIGX, the evolution from AIGC to AIGX, as well as practical AIGX applications. Then, we present a unified mobile-edge AIGX framework, which employs edge devices to provide PFM-empowered AIGX services and optimizes such services via prompt engineering. More importantly, we demonstrate that suboptimal prompts lead to poor generation quality, which adversely affects user satisfaction, edge network performance, and resource utilization. Accordingly, we conduct a case study, showcasing how to train an effective prompt optimizer using ChatGPT and investigating how much improvement is possible with prompt engineering in terms of user experience, quality of generation, and network performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE NetworkSame topicAdvanced Data and IoT TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207